PORTLAND, Ore. -- A judge says the Medford School District can forbid English teacher Shirley Katz to carry a gun on school grounds.

Katz sued the district, arguing that its policy against firearms violates a state law that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry guns into public buildings.

Katz says she has a right to carry a handgun, as a defense against intruders or her former husband.

Circuit Court Judge G. Philip Arnold ruled Friday that the Legislature has forbidden local governments from passing ordinances -- local laws -- to regulate firearms. He says an ordinance is different from a school employment policy, so state law does not prohibit the district's policy.

So then I, as someone who is not employed by any school distrcit, could obtain a concealed-weapon permit and take a concealed gun to a school? That seems to be the judge's logic. I didn't realize that would be legal at a school.

Correct, if you have a permit, you can carry a gun about anywhere, excepct a federal building, airport, or a private building.

I would think any government building (municipal courts, city halls, etc.) would also be a universally restricted area.

I took a shot gun to the check-in counter at the airport once. It was in it's case, and I needed to check it to get it to South Dakota. Security cooporated with me to get it checked in, and the fact that I brought it in to the airport in a case seemed fine by the security personelle.

Later however, the Air Force brass argued with Dick Cheney over his order to shoot your plane down.

Shane - as long as it isn't loaded, and in a case, and checked on luggage, they are fine with that. Just be open and honest with them, it sounds like you were. The last thing the TSA people want is a surprise running your luggage through the CTX scanner and finding a little gift in there.

"In a case"...

I assume one would have different reception at the airport if it weren't in a case, or you insisted on carry-on.

My co-workers needed to transport/ship guns for field work (bear protection in AK) and it was never a problem.

I was talking about conceled, you can declare a weapon at the counter, and there is no problem, as long as its unloaded.

And as the judge ruled in this case, Oregons conceled weapons law, prevent local govts from restricting carry in govt buildings. But federal law overides that, for federal buildings.

I wasn't referring to you, Okie, but wearing an unloaded conceAled weapon? What's the point? All show, no go?

No I must have said that wrong, you can't carry it conceled at the air port, it must be in a locked container.

Unless your a cop, then its up to the airline or pilot if you may carry it loaded, in your immediate possession.

Even more important than this case, will teh Supreme Court finally rule on what the Constitution says about private gun ownership.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SRJCS83&show_article=1

My employer doesn't allow me to carry a concealed weapon to work. Why shouldn't the school district have the same authority over it's employees as my employer has over me?

I support the right of schools to ban weapons, but if the high court disagrees, then I think that then state courts and federal courts should also allow weapons to carried in. There should be no double standard for the courts.

Because its public property, and the Oregon Legislature says you may carry a weapon on public property, if you have a CCW permit.

The employers rules over it's employees trump that of anyone's right to carried a concealed weapon. If you want to pack heat, find an employer who allows it.

Besides, using that kind of logic would mean we would have a right to get drunk on the job, right?

Nope, you stil have to perform your job properly.
And if a parent has the right to carry a conceled weapon, the teachers should.

So, Nwokie, do you support the right to carry weapons in all public places? That would include courts and airports, would it not?

I have no problem with that, but Oregons conceled weapons law, doesn't apply to federal property.

The constitution says, peoples right to keep and bear arms.

The Supremes are going to have a tough time saying guns can be carried in schools but not in federal courts, so if they use logic, they will let schools ban firearms.

You can already carry a gun to an Oregon school, if you have a ccw permit. Only teachers can't.

"You can already carry a gun to an Oregon school, if you have a ccw permit. Only teachers can't."

Of course, the workaround is to deny access to anyone with a concealed weapon. School administrators and security may not be able to take it away, but they also are "not" obligated to grant you access to the building.

You raise a good point Edselehr, school buildings are not really public buildings, as administrators have the right to deny access to anyone who is not a student or a teacher.

If any of my daughter's future teachers, or school employees are carrying a gun to work, she will not step foot in that school. Ever.

First of all one of the key elements of a conceled weapon, is its conceled, no one should know your carrying it.

The way Oregons CCW law is written, if a school allows any visitors, it has to allow those with a ccw permit. If the school has a parents/teachers meeting, it can't exclude someone with a carry permit. Same as athletic events or other activities.

Why on earth would someone (other than in law enforcement) feel the need to carry any conceAled weapon onto/into a school event: PTA, athletic event, Parent's night, singing performances, play, science fair, cakewalk, etc.?

Paranoid Nut Jobs. Yes, just like "teacher" Shirley.

(Unless one is attending Jefferson or Madison.)

I will be looking for a school that does NOT allow concealed weapons and/or has a metal detector at all entrances and functions.

(Before anyone wastes time wigging out on me, remember Mr. M has a permit...and as I've said here, his 9mm fell into my lap when I opened the glove box on our first date)

Under current law, a school can't prevent someone with a ccw permit from carrying a weapon onto school grounds.

You will have to go to a private school to be able to prevent someone with a ccw from carrying a firearm to a school.

Yep, either that, or the law needs to be changed by the time she enters Kindergarten.

Maybe some good will come out of this POS mess after all. I can't be the only parent who feels this way.

Hopefully this can be changed before some deranged parent or ex-student (with a permit) decides that they didn't agree with the parent-teacher meeting or the ref's bad call. Or maybe somebody like Shirley decides that she really didn't like the lunch lady's "Tuna Surprise" that day.

It's strange to me how there are varying interpretations of the second amendment. When I read the amendment, here's how I interpret the emphasis on the words (notice the caps): "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the amendment was intended to refer to the government's rights, it would be unique among amendments; all the other amendments limit government power and specify the rights of the people. And second, it would be unnecessary to contrast the government's "militia" with the second part of the sentence if the purpose of the amendment was to guarantee the right of the government to keep and bear arms.

Actually it makes sense, when you look at in context, a militia wasn't necessarily government ran, and it was expected there would be need for an armed force. So the people were guaranteed the right to maintain and bear weapons, so they could form a militia when needed, be it a possee to catch local outlaws, or a larger force to protect against indians or other marauders, or even an invading army. But the right is given to the people, not the state or fed govt.

Regardless, an employer has the right to regulate the behavior of it's employees while on the clock and on premises, which should include whether it's employees are allowed to be armed with a loaded gun.

A private employer can, It remains to be seen if a public employer can or can't. A public employer (except the feds) can't prevent a visitor from carrying a ccw, if he/she has a ccw permit. Thats defined in Oregon law.

The lawsuit isn't regarding visitors, it's regarding EMPLOYEES. And as the judge found, the employer has the right to their policies.

The law doen't make that distinction, so the higher courts will have to decide. But why should a visitor be allowed to carry, and a teacher not?

My gut feeling, the state supreme court will side with the school, I think they would be wrong, but thats the way it goes.

Because a visitor is not employed, the teacher is. Should visitors have to submit a drug test before entering a drug free workplace?

The courts will absolutely side with the employer, as they should. Otherwise, it opens up the opportunity for any teacher to claim that any behavior that is "legal" is okay on the clock and on premises, such as consuming alcohol or swearing.

No, because othere activities aren't explicitly authorized by the US constitution. "The peoples right to keep and bear arms, shall be unabriged".

It doesnt say militia members, police or any other qualifier, and it says unabriged, that means no way restricted!

Get over yourself Nwokie.

Teachers no longer have tenure. Instead every three years or less. It appears that ccw is covered in the contract agreement.

So the teacher, like any other employee, can comply with the contract terms, or find some place else to work.

CLICK CLICK BOOM!

There is however nothing that would prohibit any teacher from having their own Tazer Gun now is there? I believe in gun rights but not in our schools. The only exception is when carried by law officers. Obtaining the CWP is not all that hard and what would be lacking is the proper training of these people of when to use deadly force. The bigger threat is for an angry student to acquire that weapon and use it on several people in a fit of rage. Keep our schools drug, alcohol, tabacco, and weapon's free zones.

"It doesnt say militia members, police or any other qualifier, and it says unabriged, that means no way restricted!"

There is not a single right in the Bill of Rights that is absolute, including the right to bear arms. Every one of them is limited by statute in some way or another based on the principle of "reasonable restrictions". After Thurston, Columbine and Virginia Tech, I believe that the banning of all nonofficial guns (concealed or not) on school property will be seen as reasonable.

You can't limit anything in the constitution by statute, what limits are put on them, is by supreme court rulings.

The Constitution has no built-in mechanism to prevent the legislative branch (or executive branch) from acting in conflict with the Constitution. The SCOTUS simply applies judicial review to the statute, assuming the statute is challenged in court.

It is likely that there are many laws on the books today that, with close judicial examination, would be deemed unconstititutional. But the court can only rule on cases brought to it; it cannot summon cases or laws for judicial review.

Are US Senators allowed to pack heat in the Senate?

Larry Craig prefers to pack something else, and I don't mean his lunch.

(Sorry Vit, I couldn't help myself)

Ah yes, a year or so ago, a senators aide got in trouble because he was carring the Senators handgun. If the Senator had been carrying it, there would have been no problem.

But thats federal law, which does limit gun possession by most people, Oregons CCCW law
applies to city and state property.